Mansfield v. Meade

• Decision Date: 13 May 1946
• Docket Number: 20743
• Citation: 194 S.W.2d 544
• Parties: MANSFIELD v. MEADE
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

194 S.W.2d 544

MANSFIELD v. MEADE

No. 20743

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

May 13, 1946

'Not to be published in State Reports.'

R. J Smith, of Kansas City, and Alan F. Wherritt, of Liberty, for appellant.

Guy B Park and Burdette Yeo, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

OPINION

BLAND

On August 14, 1945, plaintiff, a resident of Jackson County brought this suit in the Circuit Court of Clay County against the defendant, Meade, who is a resident of Clay County.

On November 3, 1945, plaintiff filed an amended petition, by adding a new count and making one Roy Veach, a resident of Platte County, a party defendant. No summons was issued for Veach and he did not enter his appearance.

Court One of the amended petition is an action to recover from the defendant Veach for bookkeeping and accounting services alleged to have been rendered to him by the plaintiff, for the value of books and ledgers alleged to have been purchased by him for Veach, and for preparing and filing Federal and State Income Tax Returns for him. In this court judgment is prayed against Veach in the sum of $ 407.90, and costs.

Court Two of the petition, after adopting certain paragraphs of Count One, alleges, in effect, the sale by Veach to Meade, for a consideration unknown to plaintiff, Veach's entire business, including good will, furniture, fixtures, and all goods on hand, and that neither the vendor nor the vendee complied with the Bulk Sales Law of this State. Mo.R.S.A. § 3517 et seq. In this count judgment is prayed against Meade in the sum of $ 407.90.

On November 9, 1945, Meade filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition, and the court sustained the motion on the ground stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the motion, and rendered judgment dismissing the cause as to Meade. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the motion read as follows: 'That said amended petition shows on its face that the defendant, Meade, has no interest in the subject matter of the action against Veach. (4) That said petition fails to state a claim against defendant, Meade, upon which relief can be granted plaintiff'.

Plaintiff has appealed.

Respondent has called our attention to the fact that there has been no judgment rendered by the trial court making disposition of all of the parties to the record. The cause of action as to Veach was not disposed of. Under such circumstances, there has been no final judgment rendered in the case and the...